alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 20, 2014

Kevin Schlemmer Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Schlemmer: •' ....

.. '·-, . . . . :**~** :··...) {_,···.

The Delta County Chamber ofCommercejoins the Delta County Airport Board and the Delta County Board of Commissioners in their support ofthe bld from SkywestAirlines. It is our understanding that the Skywest Airlines proposal offers the same service our regional airport is currently receiving, and their code share package with Delta Airlineswill maintain the consistency and continuity needed to increase the already established frequent flyer loyalty in our community. The airport's current bank oftime schedules is a key partto the increase ofenplanementnumbers, and maintaining a familiar service will allow for these numbers to continue growing. Furthermore, Delta Airlines partners have shown a consistent high degree of customer service for our community and visitors. Their reliable schedule provides quick access to Detroit's Network ofworld connections necessaryto assist our community in creating global economic opportunities. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely,

Vickie Micheau Executive Director

230 Ludington Street, Escanaba, Ml 49829 A. (906) 786-2192 ... (906) 786-8830 fax www.deltami.org
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS) FY2012 COPS Hiring Program (CHP) 

Awardees – 9/27/2012 Awards 

State Agency Legal Name Total Officers Awarded Total Award Amount

Arizona Gila River Indian Community 7 $875,000

Casa Grande, City of 1 $125,000

California Lindsay Department of Public Safety 1 $125,000

Leemore, City of 1 $125,000

La Habra, City of 1 $125,000

South Gate Police 4 $500,000

Illinois *Blue Mound, Village of 1 $187,134

Massachusetts Lynn Department of Public Safety 6 $750,000

Michigan Wayne County 2 $250,000

New Jersey Gloucester City 1 $125,000

Ohio Lake County Sherriff’s Department 2 $250,000

Washington Seattle, City of 1 $125,000

Total Award Amounts 28 $3,562,134

*Agency received a waiver of the local match
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition of Iron Mask Mining Company
(Unaudited) and the Consolidated Statement of Income or the three months ended
September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   710
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       830,366
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       710
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    17
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 17
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 3, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDED
JANUARY 3, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000868263
<NAME> NATIONAL VISION ASSOCIATES, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           2,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                       762
<INVENTORY>                                     23,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,655
<PP&E>                                          80,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           208
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,250
<SALES>                                        186,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,354
<CGS>                                           86,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
Submitted on record and briefs December 23, 1993,

affirmed February 2, 1994

#### RAYMOND ABRAHAM MITCHELL, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent.*

(CA A77255 (Control), A77401)

(Cases Consolidated)

869 P2d 868

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for petitioner.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Harrison Latto, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds, Judge, and Durham, Judge pro tempore.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Flowers v. Board of Parole,*124 Or App 331, 862 P2d 1312 (1993).
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedur e.

NO. COA1 3

- 858 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 February 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Mecklenburg County No. 1 2 CRS 2 036 07 KEITH REGINALD FRAZIER

Appeal by D efendant from judgment entered 15 M a rch 201 3 by Judge C. Thomas Edwards in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2014
.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General David W. Boone , for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Paul M. Green, for defendant

- appellant
. DILLON , Judge.

Keith Reginald Frazier (“D efendant”) appeals from judgment
dated 15 March 2013 and entered upon a guilty verdict convicting him of possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of 1 2 to 24 m onths imprisonment and placed D efendan t on supervised probation for 18 months
. Counsel appointed to represent D efendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful- 2

-

argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfac tion of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising D efendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing h im with the documen ts necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. After careful review, w e have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error , and, therefore, we affirm the judgment below.
AFFIRMED . Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER, JR. concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
§ 520.5 Administrative appeal. ( a ) An appeal to the Director of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to and copies of material may be made by submission of a written request for reconsideration. Such requests must state specific reasons for reconsideration that address directly the grounds upon which the denial was based. Requests should be addressed to the Director at the Commission offices.
( b ) The Director shall make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receipt of the request for reconsideration. The person making such a request shall immediately be notified by mail of the determination.
( c ) If the initial denial is reversed by the Director, any material with which the reversal is concerned shall be made available for inspection, and copies shall be furnished, in accordance with § 520.4(d).
( d ) If the denial is upheld, in whole or in part, the Director shall include in the notification a statement of the requester's right of judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4), and the names and positions of the persons responsible for the denial.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1311/2005

of 10 August 2005         

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 August 2005 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of September 2005 for 2 648,030 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 August 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1118/2004 (OJ L 217, 17.6.2004, p. 10).

----
No. 12

- 15

- 00020

- CR

ROBERT MITCHELL DEAN § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Appellant § §

vs. § 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appelle e § § AT TYLER , TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the abo ve entitled and

numbered cause, and makes this Motion to Withdraw, and for good cause shows the following:

I.

Counsel was appointed to represent Appellant in the appeal of this matter. Having

undertaken a diligent and thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded that, in his

professional judgment, there exist no arguable grounds for reversible error. A c opy of

Appellant’s Brief filed pursuant to the requirements of Anders v. California , along with a copy of

this Motion, has been served on Appellant who has also been informed of the ri ght to file a pro

se brief by 5 April 2015

, the right object to this Motion , and the right to obtain a copy of records

from counsel . Said notification was s ent to Appellant by first class certified mail at:

Inmate 01978792 Gurney Unit 1385 FM 3 328 Palestine , TX 75803

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , u ndersigned counsel respectfully prays

that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion to W ithdraw and afford

Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief in this matter. ACCEPTED 12-15-00020-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 3/6/2015 10:40:04 AM CATHY LUSK CLERKRespectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve J ackson 

### Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: ( 903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: ( 866) 387

- 0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was

served on counsel for the State by facsimile . Further, a copy of this Motion was also s erved on

Appellant by certified first class mail.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of United American Healthcare Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William C. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

       1.  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

       2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
           of the Company.

Dated September 24, 2003


                                        By: /s/ William C. Brooks
                                           --------------------------------
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer
                                        (principal executive officer)
Editorial Note on Part 648
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

§ 648.323 Accountability measures. ( a ) *TAL overages.* If the skate wing fishery TAL or skate bait fishery TAL is determined to have been exceeded by more than 5 percent in any given year based upon, but not limited to, available landings information, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the in-season possession limit trigger for that fishery, as specified at § 648.322(b) and (d), in the next fishing year by 1 percent for each 1 percent of TAL overage, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
( b ) *ACL overages.* ( 1 ) If the ACL is determined to have been exceeded in any given year, based upon, but not limited to, available landings and discard information, the percent buffer between ACL and ACT shall be increased by 1 percent for each 1-percent ACL overage in the second fishing year following the fishing year in which the ACL overage occurred, through either the specifications or framework adjustment process described under §§ 648.320 and 648.321.
( 2 ) If the Council fails to initiate action to correct an ACL overage through the specifications or framework adjustment process, consistent with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Regional Administrator shall implement the required adjustment, as described under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
[75 FR 34061, June 16, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 4376, Feb. 15, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 185 (Monday, September 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 55803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8145]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before September 9, 2006. Pursuant to Sec.  
60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of 
these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation 
may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National 
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 
2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of 
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, 
Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments 
should be submitted by October 10, 2006.

John W. Roberts,
Acting Chief, National Register/National Historic Landmarks Program.

ALABAMA

Jefferson County

Birmingham Civil Rights Historic District, (Civil Rights Movement in 
Birmingham, Alabama MPS), Roughly bounded 9th Ave., Richard 
Arrington Jr. Blvd., 1st Ave. and 14th St., Birmingham, 06000940

ARKANSAS

Ashley County

Portland United Methodist Church, 300 N. Main St., Portland, 
06000942

Pulaski County

Stifft Station Historic District, Bounded by W. Markham, W. 7th, 
Woodrow and Martin Sts., Little Rock, 06000941

NEW JERSEY

Cape May County

Brandywine Shoal Light Station, (Light Stations of the United States 
MPS) In lower Delaware Bay, about 8.8 mi. WNW of Cape May Point, 
Cape May Point, 06000943

OREGON

Multnomah County

Seufert House, 1511 Knott St., Portland, 06000944

WISCONSIN

Barron County

Stebbins, Edward N. and Mary T., House, 130 E. Division Ave., 
Barron, 06000945

[FR Doc. 06-8145 Filed 9-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.521 Spiny lobster import prohibitions. ( a ) *Minimum size limits for imported spiny lobster.* Multiple minimum size limits apply to importation of spiny lobster into the United States—one that applies any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States other than Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and more restrictive minimum size limits that apply to Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, respectively. ( 1 ) No person may import a spiny lobster with less than a 6-ounce (170-gram) tail weight into St. Thomas or St. John. For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a 6-ounce (170-gram) tail weight is defined as a tail that weighs 5.9-6.4 ounces (167-181 grams). If the documentation accompanying an imported spiny lobster, including but not limited to product packaging, customs entry forms, bills of lading, brokerage forms, or commercial invoices, indicates that the product does not satisfy the minimum tail-weight, the person importing such spiny lobster has the burden to prove that such spiny lobster does satisfy the minimum tail-weight requirement or that such spiny lobster has a tail length of 6.2 inches (15.75 cm) or greater or that such spiny lobster has or had a carapace length of 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) or greater. If the imported product itself does not satisfy the minimum tail-weight requirement, the person importing such spiny lobster has the burden to prove that such spiny lobster has a tail length of 6.2 inches (15.75 cm) or greater or that such spiny lobster has or had a carapace length of 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) or greater. If the burden is satisfied, such spiny lobster will be considered to be in compliance with the minimum 6-ounce (170-gram) tail-weight requirement.
( 2 ) See § 622.409 regarding the minimum size limit that applies to spiny lobster imported into any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States other than Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
( 3 ) See subparts S and T of this part for the minimum size limits that apply to spiny lobster imported into Puerto Rico and St. Croix, respectively.
( b ) *Additional spiny lobster import prohibitions* — ( 1 ) *Prohibition related to tail meat.* No person may import into any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States spiny lobster tail meat that is not in whole tail form with the exoskeleton attached.
( 2 ) *Prohibitions related to egg-bearing spiny lobster.* No person may import into any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States spiny lobster with eggs attached or spiny lobster from which eggs or pleopods (swimmerets) have been removed or stripped. Pleopods are the first five pairs of abdominal appendages.